[YG Conlang Archives] > [jboske group] > messages [Date Index] [Thread Index] >
On Fri, Nov 15, 2002 at 01:59:45PM -0000, And Rosta wrote:
> Jordan:
[...]
> > The second one fixes the problem of the inner quantifier, and of
> > implying knowing which things are in the set being talked about (by
> > using le'i). However, if we use a nondefault quantifier on le, I
> > think it is implied that the speaker knows which members of le'i
> > gerku are being discussed:
> > re le gerku cu xagji .ijeku'i pa le gerku puzi citka lo mlatu
> > talks about a specific pair of gerku, not just {re da poi cmima
> > le'i gerku} (some pair of dogs from the set)
> >
> > Anyone have answers for these?
>
> I don't understand why you read {re le gerku} in this way. It means
> {lo re le gerku} = {re da poi cmima le'i gerku}. You seem to be
[ I assume you mean {re lo ro le gerku} ]
> reading it as {le re le gerku} = {le re du poi ke'a cmima le'i
> gerku} or else as {le re du ku poi ke'a cmima le'i gerku} (if
> membership of le'i gerku is meant veridically).
I was assuming that selecting from le'i gerku is done with the
implication that the speaker knows which members are being selected.
However, apparently this assumption is unfounded? I can't find
anything in the book specifically dealing with it...
If one adopts your approach, in which that implication is not
present, it can be regained, as you mention, with {le re le gerku}.
Which works for me.
--
Jordan DeLong - fracture@hidden.email
lu zo'o loi censa bakni cu terzba le zaltapla poi xagrai li'u
sei la mark. tuen. cusku
Attachment:
binzjmVYpBsW9.bin
Description: application/ygp-stripped